Summary of C4E Meeting by xarrnet


									                                  Summary of C4E Meeting
                                 April 9, 2008, 1:30-2:30 p.m.
                          Hudson Valley Community College, Troy, NY

Meeting commenced at 1:30 and was webcast, although there were technical difficulties with the
webcast. NYSED apologizes for the inconvenience these technical difficulties caused and is working
with Hudson Valley Community College to be able to assure school districts that this technology will
be operational for the May 13, 2008 focus group on student performance evaluation. Complete list of
those who attended in person include at the end of these notes.

Materials distributed at the meeting, as well as a link to a video of the meeting, are available on the
C4E website at:

Chuck Szuberla began with a review of C4E statutory changes. The budget was adopted earlier in the
day by the Legislature. Key points:
    39 total C4E districts in year 2 (see below for page 3 of power point located on website)
    3 new districts
    All Big 5 cities continue to be contract districts

                       Contract for Excellence Districts for 2008-09
                                            2008-2009                                              2008-2009
                 District      Flexibility Newly                 District            Flexibility   Newly
        BEDS     Name          Factors     Identified   BEDS     Name                Factors       Identified
        10100    ALBANY        4%, 35%                  430700   GENEVA              4%, 35%
        10601    SOUTH COLONIE 4%, 35%                  441000   MIDDLETOWN          4%, 35%
        11200    WATERVLIET    4%, 50%                  441301   VALLEY-MONTGMR      4%, 50%
        30200    BINGHAMTON    4%, 35%                  441600   NEWBURGH            4%, 35%
        60800    DUNKIRK       4%, 35%                  441800   PORT JERVIS         4%, 50%
        70600    ELMIRA        4%, 35%                  460500   FULTON              4%, 35%
        81200    NORWICH       4%, 35%                  460701   HANNIBAL            4%, 50%
        90501    NORTHEASTERN 4%, 50%                   460901   MEXICO              4%, 50%       NEW
        130801   HYDE PARK     4%, 50%                  461300   OSWEGO              4%, 35%
        131601   ARLINGTON     4%, 50%                  500201   HAVERSTRAW-STONEY   4%, 35%
        132101   WAPPINGERS    4%, 50%                  512001   MASSENA             4%, 50%
        140600   BUFFALO       3%, 25%                  530600   SCHENECTADY         4%, 35%
        170500   GLOVERSVILLE  4%, 35% NEW              550101   ODESSA MONTOUR      4%, 50%       NEW
        222000   WATERTOWN     4%, 35%                  580105   COPIAGUE            4%, 35%
        260501   GREECE        4%, 50%                  591401   MONTICELLO          4%, 35%
        261600   ROCHESTER     3%, 25%                  600801   SPENCERVAN ETTEN    4%, 50%
        270100   AMSTERDAM     4%, 35%                  661401   OSSINING            4%, 50%
        300000   NEW YORK CITY 3%, 25%                  662200   WHITE PLAINS        4%, 50%
        412300   UTICA         4%, 35%                  662300   YONKERS              4%, 50%
        421800   SYRACUSE      4%, 50%


    20 contract districts from 2007-08 are not C4E districts

2007-008 C4E Districts (No Longer Contract Districts in 2008-09)

BEDS                          District

180202                        Alexander
050100                        Auburn City SD
580512                        Brentwood UFSD
190301                        Cairo-Durham CSD
410601                        Camden CSD
222201                        Carthage CSD
460801                        Central Square CSD
650301                        Clyde Savannah CSD
260801                        East Irondequoit CSD
590501                        Fallsburg CSD
061700                        Jamestown City SD
141901                        Lancaster CSD
490601                        Lansingburgh CSD
661904                        Port Chester UFSD
261701                        Rush-Henrietta CSD
521401                        South Glens Falls CSD
261001                        Spencerport CSD
660401                        UFSD Tarrytowns
081003                        Unadilla Valley CSD
280401                        Westbury UFSD


Approved legislation regarding contract requirements applies to districts receiving an additional $15
million or a 10% increase or a Supplemental Educational Improvement Grant and:
            – Requiring academic progress year 2 or above or,
            – At least one school identified as in need of improvement year 2 or above, or
            – In corrective action or in
            – Restructuring status.

Applies to districts that filed a contract in 2007-08 and have received a 20% cumulative increase in aid,
or $27.5 million over two years, must file a Contract in ’08-09 if they have a three year performance
deficiency [i.e., SINI 2 schools or worse]. Funds must be used to predominately benefit students with
the greatest needs.

Increased flexibility for some districts:

    The 3% inflation factor and the 25% (or $30 million which ever is less) flexibility standards will
     continue for NYC, Rochester and Buffalo.
    Yonkers & Syracuse will have a 4% inflation factor and 50% flexibility.
    Outside of Big 5, the flexibility factors will be a 4% inflation rate and:
        – 50% flexibility for districts with no schools beyond SINI 2 or SRAP 2 improvement
        – 35% flexibility for districts with school (s) in corrective action, restructuring or SRAP 3.


Additional funding must be used in accordance with the same five allowable programs which were
included in last year’s C4E, as well as a (6th) program option specifically targeting English Language
Learners (ELL).

   1.   Class Size Reduction
   2.   Increased Time on Task
   3.   Improving Teacher/Principal Quality
   4.   Restructuring Middle School/High School
   5.   Full Day Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten
   6.   Model Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency (NEW)
   7.   Experimental Programs

Class Size Reduction information was shared:
            Districts may create or construct more classrooms.
            Districts may assign more than one teacher in a classroom to reduce student: teacher
            The Commissioner will appoint a panel to recommend appropriate standards.
            New York City is required to develop and submit a plan to make continuous progress to
              reduce class size over the next five years and shall not exceed the targets by the end of
              the 2010-11 school year.

Time on Task options may include:
          Lengthened school day.
          Lengthened school year.
          Dedicated instructional time.
          Individualized tutoring.
          After-school programs (new)

Supporting Comment: Music and Art Programs are also identified in Commissioner’s Regulations as
allowable options under increased Time on Task.

Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives:
    Recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and principals.

    Professional mentoring programs for beginning teachers and principals.
    Incentive programs for highly qualified and high performing teachers to transfer to low
     performing schools.
    Instructional coaches for teachers.
    School leadership coaches for principals.

Middle or High School Restructuring:
    Implement instructional program changes.
    Make structural changes to schools.
The above programs must include:
    Instructional program changes, and
    Challenging academic content and learning opportunities.

Full Day Prekindergarten and Kindergarten:
    Pre-kindergarten: full day instructional program for four-year-old children.
    Kindergarten: full day instructional program for five-year-old children.
    Both may include extended hours at school or community based organizations.

Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency:
    Expansion or replication of effective model programs for students with limited English

Deborah Cunningham reviewed some initial Limited English Proficiency model programs being
implemented around the nation that have proven effective for closing the achievement gap for English
Language Learners. The development of this option is ongoing and will be included in the online
application for 2008-09.

Experimental Program:
    Districts may spend up to 15 percent of contract amount for experimental programs
    Program must include an evaluation plan.
    Experimental programs require a contract approved by the commissioner.


Each contract for a school district that prepared a contract last year shall provide for the expenditure
of the same amount approved by the commissioner in the district’s prior year contract; provided that
such amount shall be expended to support and maintain programs and activities approved in the base
year or to support new or expanded programs and activities in the current year.

Supporting Comment: The online application will enable districts to report funds expended in the prior
year, and funds targeted for 2008-09 by program option(s).

Commissioner’s approval based on a determination that contracts for excellence demonstrate that
allowable programs selected by the district:

(1) predominately benefit those students with the greatest educational needs, including but not limited
       (a) students with limited English proficiency and students who are English language learners;
       (b) students in poverty; and
       (c) students with disabilities;

(2) predominately benefit those students in schools identified as requiring academic progress, or in
need of improvement, or in corrective action, or restructuring and address the most serious academic
problems in those schools; and

(3) are based on practices supported by research or other comparable evidence in order to facilitate
student attainment of State learning standards. This change was endorsed by the Board of Regents at
their meeting on June 26, 2007.


Adding "students with low academic achievement" to the specified list of student groups included
within "students with the greatest educational needs."

Clarifying requirements for the use of contract of excellence funds, as follows:
    For school districts in cities with a population of one hundred twenty-five thousand or more, at
     least 75 percent of the contract amount shall be distributed to benefit students having the
     greatest educational needs who are enrolled in the top 50 half of schools within the district
     ranked in order of relative incidence of poverty, disability, limited English proficiency and low
     school performance.
    For all other school districts, at least 75 percent of the contract amount shall be distributed to
     benefit students having the greatest educational needs enrolled in schools requiring academic
     progress, or in need of improvement, or in corrective action, or in restructuring.
    Provision would also be made: (a) that schools in improvement status will receive at least their
     pro rata share of contract funds based on their share of total district need; and (b) that the
     Commissioner may waive the above requirements upon a showing of good cause.
    Districts must specify requirements relating to the conduct of the public process for the
     development of contracts for excellence, including establishing a 30-day public comment
     period, public hearing notice and procedural requirements, and requirements that school district
     prepare and made available on request a public comment record and assessment.
    Districts must specify requirements relating to the process for bringing complaints regarding
     contracts for excellence, including requirements for the complaint form, notice of complaint
     procedures and complaint commencement investigation, resolution and appeals.


Jim Viola, Executive Director of the SED Office of School Improvement presented (Complete Power
Point can be found He reviewed the range of
information sessions that were provided across the state and the development and sequence of C4E (see
below: page 5 of Monitoring Power Point).

    •   April 1, 2007           -    Legislature Passes Chapter 57
    •   April 9, 2007           -    Superintendents and District Superintendents
    •                                e-mailed regarding Chapter 57
    •   July 6, 2007            -    C4E Questions and Answers Posted
    •   July 16, 2007           -    Contracts Submitted to SED
    •   July 23, 2007           -    SED Requests District Superintendent C4E
                                     Review and Comments
    •   August 15, 2007         -    SED Review Completed; Feedback to Districts
    •   October–December 2007   -    Regional and Big City Information Sessions
    •   November 19, 2007       -    Contracts Approved; Implementation Begins
    •   November 28, 2007       -    SED Notifies Districts of Preliminary SURRs
    •   December 19, 2007       -    Statewide Meeting C4E Districts
    •   January 2008            -    School Quality Reviews Begin
    •   Mid February 2008       -    SED Announcement of New SURRs
    •   February 29, 2008       -    SQR Team Recommendations to School
    •   March-May 2008          -    SED Visits to C4E Districts
    •   April 2008              -    State Budget Established
    •   July 2008-June 2009     -    Contract Implementation for 2008-09


Jim explained the process that will commence as Rest of State (outside of New York City) monitoring
begins within the next couple of weeks. A schedule of visits is being developed and schools are being
contacted. New York City monitoring began in March. Districts that will not be contract districts in
2008-09 will still be monitored for compliance and program implementation in the current year, but
questions related to planning efforts for 2008-09 will not be included.

Jim reviewed areas for discussion when SED staff visit districts:

    For 2007-08 the school district solicited public comment on the contract.
    For 2008-09 the school district will implement a public process, including one or more public
     hearings on the contract.
    Contract for Excellence is fully implemented, with fidelity.
    Contract funding is appropriately targeted to student sub-population(s) most in need, consistent
     with approved contract.
    Contract services/programs have resulted in improved performance and provide a basis to
     expect achievement of contract performance targets.
    Any issues/considerations noted by District Superintendents and SED personnel during the
     contract review/approval process have been reviewed on-site.

    The school district has established procedures for the filing of parent complaints with the
     building principal or school superintendent.

The number of school visited within each C4E district is outlined in the diagram below.

                                      2007-2008 Site Visits

                                           Contracts for Excellence
                                                 Site Visits

                                            NYC – March – April
                                             ROS – April - May

                                     Contracts for Excellence Districts

                       All NYC Districts              ROS                 Big 4 Districts

                       4 schools per 32          1-2 schools per          4 schools per
                        Districts = 128         District based on          District = 16
                                               achievement levels


                                           Report issued in 30 days


List of On-site Participants, District or Organization, and Contact Email:

Name                          District/Organization                   Contact Email

Ileana Eckert      Haverstraw-Stoney Point                  
Robert Katulak     Haverstraw-Stoney Point                  
Laurie Walser      Haverstraw-Stoney Point                  
Tony DeBlois       South Colonie                            
Lissa Jilek        Cairo-Durham                             
Peter Turner       Northeastern Clinton                     
Nellie Bush        Amsterdam                                
Thomas Perillo     Amsterdam                                
Christine Brady    Wappingers                               
Cheryl Thomas      Wappingers                               
Dick Powell        Wappingers                               
Mike Sanangelo     Schenectady                              
Eric Ely           Schenectady                              
Eva Joseph         Albany                                   
Joseph Dragone     Albany                                   
(not legible)      Albany
Paul Padolino      Watervliet
Lisa Kyer          Lansingburgh                             
George Goodwin     Lansingburgh                             
Cora Stempel       Hyde Park                                
Matt Reilly        SED                                      
Stephen McNally    SED                                      
Deborah Cunningham SED                                      
Rosemarie Pugliese SED                                      
Charles Szuberla   SED                                      
Jim Viola          SED                                      
Jay O’Connor       SED                                      

EdMgtSrv/C4E/08-09/Meetings/4-9-08 focus group/summary of 4-9-08 C4E meeting.doc


To top